About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 659
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Ntsoko v South African Legal Practice Council (2023/099265) [2026] ZAGPPHC 659 (11 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2023/099265
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
DATE 11 JUNE 2026
SIGNATURE
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
THABO
JOHANNES MOKETSI NTSOKO
APPLICANT
and
THE
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
RESPONDENT
Delivered: This
judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties
/ their legal representatives by email and
by uploading to Caselines.
The date of hand down is deemed to be 11 June 2026
JUDGMENT
LUKHAIMANE AJ
[1]
This is an opposed application brought by the applicant on 05
February 2024 for the upliftment of his suspension as a legal
practitioner
in the High Court of South Africa.
[2]
The applicant was suspended on 6 March 2006. He disputes that
he was struck from the roll and therefore applies for the upliftment
of his suspension. The LPC could not confirm whether he had been
struck or not. As the applicant would bear the same onus of proving
that he is a reformed character in an application for readmission and
in an application for uplifting his suspension, nothing turns
on
this.
[3]
The
applicant contends that he is now
rehabilitated and is a “fit and proper person” for
readmission as a legal practitioner.
The Respondent (where
appropriate referred to as the LPC) however opposes the application,
contending that the applicant is not
reformed.
Background
[4]
The facts and circumstances which led to
the suspension of the Applicant related to 17 (seventeen) complaints
received by the Respondent
against the Applicant, which complaints
inter alia,
included
the following:
a.
The Applicant’s failure to give
proper attention to his clients’ matters;
b.
The Applicant’s failure to account
to his clients;
c.
The Applicant’s failure to pay his
clients in full;
d.
The Applicant practising without a trust
banking account;
e.
The Applicant’s failure to inform
the Respondent of his change of address;
f.
The Applicant’s failure to update
his firm’s accounting records;
g.
Delayed payments to clients;
h.
Trust cheques not always made payable to
the order of a payee specifically.
[5]
Generally, the committee found, that
there was evidence of misappropriation of clients’ moneys by
the Applicant, that resulted
in client losses. The committee held
that the misconduct also amounted to technical violations of the
regulatory framework on the
handling of clients’ funds.
[6]
The applicant was evasive regarding his
guilt and tended to blame other people, including his principal when
he was serving articles.
Re-Admission
[7]
The
Legal Practice Act
[1]
(LPA) does
not specifically provide for the re-admission of legal practitioners
previously struck off the roll. Section 24(2) of
the LPA provides
that the High Court must admit to practice and authorise to be
enrolled as a legal practitioner, any person who,
upon application,
satisfies the court that he or she is a fit and proper person to be
so admitted. The same criterion applies to
an application for
re-admission. More is required, however, with re-admission as a legal
practitioner. That is because the Court
is dealing with a person,
who, having sworn to comport as required of an officer of the court
was found to have fallen short, of
upholding ethical standards
[2]
.
[8]
In reaching the decision whether a
person is indeed ‘fit and proper’ for legal practice, the
court also relies on the
report by the Respondent in all
applications. In Behrman supra at 557, the court stated that:
“
it
is not a condition precedent to re-admitting a person to practice
that the Law Society should first be satisfied as to his fitness
to
be re-admitted but the Court gives considerable weight to the views
of the Law Society. The view to be given to the attitude
of the Law
Society will be determined by the soundness of the reasons for its
attitude”
[9]
An
applicant for re-admission must show that there has been a genuine,
complete and permanent reformation of the defect that led
to removal
from the roll. The defect that led to removal must be shown to no
longer exist and it must be shown that the applicant
can be trusted
to be a person with integrity, worthy to be a member of the
profession.
[10]
In
the determination as to whether the onus that rests on the applicant
has been discharged, the court is required to scrutinise
his conduct
that led to the suspension order, together with his conduct
subsequent thereto
[3]
.
Discussion
and Findings
[11]
It has been over 19 years since the
applicant’s name was removed from the roll.
[12]
In
his founding and supplementary affidavits, the applicant
inter
alia
sets out his life history and
acceptance of the guilty findings made by the disciplinary committee,
established by the then Law
Society. The applicant was raised in
impoverished circumstances, his father had passed and he took care of
his 81-year-old mother.
He has a brother and three sisters that are
financially self-sufficient. He had a tough childhood as his parents
did not have much.
From Grade 10, he did part-time work, through to
varsity. His wife divorced him because of him being suspended from
practise and
left with their three children that he still maintains.
[13]
His children had to endure the stigma of
his suspension. His life goal has always been to be a lawyer. He
obtained his law degree
at the University of Natal and served
articles from 1991 to 1992. Thereafter he worked as a legal advisor
and salesman before completing
his Board Exams in 2000.
[14]
Following his suspension, he worked for
Comfort Bedding for three years, thereafter he opened his own
company, Express Foam 212
Manufacturers CC and then opened his own
legal and business consultancy, Thabo Ntsoko Inc (which he was forced
to close as most
persons required a practising attorney due to the
nature of the business). He has been an assistant at Mahlangu
Attorneys
from June 2021 to date, mainly involved with drafting legal
documents.
[15]
He has been admitted for a Masters
Degree in Law (International Business Law) at the University of
Cumbria, Robert Kennedy College,
UK, for which he has applied for
funding assistance.
[16]
It is the applicant’s contention
that he was unable to attend to his clients’ affairs with the
requisite care and professionalism,
because of naivety, lack of
skills and experience, lack of emotional strength to manage his
predicament, lack of seed capital to
start his practise and lack of
financial backing to sustain him.
[17]
The Applicant states in his
supplementary affidavit, that one Ms Malatji at the LPC, helpfully
provided him with the guidance as
to what he needs to do to prepare
for a re-admission application, which the applicant summarised as
being the requirement to attend
the Practical Management Training
Course, with LEAD (which he did in 2016), provide a clearance
certificate from the South African
Police Service and to make amends
with the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund (hereinafter referred to
as the Fidelity Fund) by
repaying what the Fidelity Fund has
disbursed to his erstwhile clients. The Respondent on the other hand
appeared bewildered at
the involvement of Ms Malatji with the
Applicant as Ms Malatji is not involved in the disciplinary affairs
of practitioners. Having
said that, the way the applicant presented
his case, did not demonstrate that he understands the nature and
purpose of this type
of application.
[18]
In
his affidavit, he criticises the Professional Affairs Committee of
the LPC for failing to provide him with reasons for not recommending
him for re-admission. He also re-argues the merits of the
various charges founding the suspension order, without providing
any
proof for his submissions. Generally, the applicant still disputes
the merits of some of the charges he was found guilty of
and
minimises or seeks to explain away those charges he accepts, as
misunderstandings on the part of the clients.
[19]
Even
though he accepts that he found himself in financial difficulty
without financial backing and not having had seed capital,
the
applicant only identifies and acknowledges his lack of accounting
skills and training as a shortcoming that he has since remedied
by
attending a course. He does not consider this a character defect
[4]
.
[20]
Applicant has successfully
completed the prescribed Practice Management Training Course with
LEAD and professes that he now
understands the bookkeeping principles
for Attorneys. However, his conduct and attitude to the earlier
enquiry, which attitude
subsists with this application, proves a lack
of insight and appreciation for the serious nature of the charges and
findings made
against him.
[21]
The applicant was found to have been
dishonest, in the conduct of his defence against the charges by the
Law Society. In this application,
he fails to acknowledge his
dishonesty and therefore does not even provide evidence of how this
has since been cured. One such
attempt at evidence of rehabilitation
is the submission of letters of support from persons that he has
interacted with. However,
these are insufficient evidence as the role
he was occupying whilst interacting with these persons does not
provide evidence to
the characteristics of ‘fit and proper’.
More specifically, the element of dishonesty or handling funds on
behalf of
others. It is commonly accepted that to be ‘fit and
proper’, a person must show integrity, reliability and honesty.
[22]
In
Swartzberg v Law Society, Northern Provinces
[2008] ZASCA 36
;
2008 (5) SA 322
(SCA),
the Supreme Court of Appeal held that:
“
22.
The fundamental question to be answered in an application of this
kind is whether there has been a genuine, complete and permanent
reformation on the appellant’s part. This involves an inquiry
as to whether the defect of character or attitude which led
him to
being adjudged not fit and proper, no longer exists. Allied to that
is an assessment of the applicant’s character
reformation and
the chances of his successful conformation in the future to the
exacting demands of the profession that he seeks
to re-enter. It is
thus crucial for a Court confronted with an application of this kind
to determine what the particular defect
of character or attitude was.
More importantly it is for the appellant himself to first properly
and correctly identify the default
of character or attitude involved
and thereafter to act in accordance with that appreciation. For,
until and unless there is such
a cognitive appreciation on the part
of the appellant, it is difficult to see how the defect can be cured
and corrected. It seems
to me that any true and lasting reformation
depends on such appreciation”
[23]
In
addition, he entered into an agreement with the Fidelity Fund
[5]
for the repayment of R361 790.37 (three hundred and sixty-one
thousand, seven hundred and ninety rands and thirty-seven cents)
on 1
July 2023, agreeing to pay monthly instalments of R6 029.83 (six
thousand and twenty-nine rands and eighty-three cents), on
or before
the 7
th
of every month. However, he failed to provide any proof of payment
towards this agreement, nor could he remember how much he has
already
paid back and what is outstanding. The mere fact of such payments
having been made by the Fidelity Fund meant that it had
been
satisfied that the applicant had been guilty of theft of trust funds.
This is not something the applicant appears to appreciate.
He has
failed to identify the character defects that led to his suspension.
What is more is that he has failed to come to grips
with these
defects in a manner establishing that he is a reformed character.
[24]
The applicant has
not shown
that he is a ‘fit and proper’ person for re-admission as
a legal practitioner. As the LPC is a sui generis
litigant acting in
the public interest, it should not be out of pocket for having
opposed these proceedings.
[25]
The following order is made:
(a) The application is
dismissed.
(b) The applicant is
ordered to pay the costs of the application, on a scale as between
attorney
and client.
LUKHAIMANE AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
LABUSCHAGNE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances
:
On
behalf of the Applicant:
Self-represented
On
behalf of the Respondent:
Ms
Moolman on behalf of Damons Magardie Richardson Attorneys
Date
of hearing:
5 May
2026
Date
of judgment:
11
June 2026
[1]
Act
28/2014
[2]
Law
Society, Transvaal v Behrman
1981 (4) SA 538
(A) at 540E-G;
Swartzberg v Law Society of Northern Provinces
[2008] ZASCA 36
;
[2008] 3 All SA 438(SCA)
; 2008(5) SA 322 (SCA) at para [18]
[3]
Johannesburg
Society of Advocates and Another v Nthai and Others
2021 (2) SA 343
(SCA) ; Kudo v Cape Law Society
1972 (4) SA 342
(C) at 345H-346A
[4]
Character
defects refers to personality traits or behavioural patterns that
are harmful, unethical, or unprofessional eg. dishonesty,
irresponsibility, or untrustworthiness.
[5]
CaseLines
01 – 78 to 83